My Economic Prediction for the Next Five Years

January 2nd, 2007 Posted by admin

In 2004, I predicted the following:

• By November of 2005 the expansion of the US economy would stop (Correct)
• By August of 2006 we would structurally be in recession, regardless of the numbers promoted by the federal government (Correct)
• By October of 2006 we would see a slowdown in business (correct)
• Between November and February we would see a market correction of 30%. I refined this to December 15th, which has since passed. (Incorrect)
• By March 2007 we would openly discuss a state of recession. By August of 2007 we would be in full recession.
• The recession will last until the spring of 2010.
• The baby boomer reduction will hit shortly thereafter and fight against the attempted recovery.
• The US will drag the planet into worldwide reorganization the scope of which we have not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire.

This does not mean that people will not make money, or that businesses will not continue. It means that there will be less of a distribution of prosperity, and that prosperity we have made by our knowledge production will expand far less quickly. The counter-argument is that the number of people in the population simply affects the amount of economic innovation that occurs, but this is counter to what has happened in the history of Asia, which returns to the equilibrium of poverty just as quickly as the innovation can be implemented.

I will try to keep this updated as we move through time.

 

Add a Comment Trackback

Add a Comment

Name *Required

Email *Required
(Will not be published)

Website

Comment

 

CAPTCHA Code

• About

  Curt Doolittle
  Seattle, WA, United States
  I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Austrian Libertarian tradition. Twitter: curt_doolittle hotmail: curt_doolittle Facebook

• Purpose

  Conservatism currently consists of a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.

  
  

  This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.

  
  

  Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.

  
  

  By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatism - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.

  
  

• Subscribe

  Your email:
  

   

• Morality And Sentiments

  • Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives
  • Survey Your Morals

• Points To Ponder

  'Whether you call us Aristotelians, Machiavellians, Nietzscheians or Conservatives, or some other label, is immaterial - save to say that in doing so you attempt to make equal a difference between approaches to politics and economics that is anything but equal.
  
  The underlying difference is that those of us in this group, study what men do and why, what they have done, and why, in it's entirety, across civilizations and across time, and from that study propose incremental solutions based on that analysis, rather than postulate a utopian model that assumes how men should or could act, if they were something other than human beings with the record of doing what they have done.
  
  And if you wish to say we have class philosophy I would agree at least to one meaning of that statement. All philosophies are class philosophies. They must be. Universal philosophies that prescribe solutions for multiple classes, or that attempt to ally a set of classes, ask by doing so, no less than one class to suffer, and more likely, only one class to prosper - and to do so at the expense of another.
  
  Classes are part of the division of knowledge and labor. And like religion they are very difficult to cross philosophically - even if we can cross them economically.
  
  So yes, to use this method of study is Aristotelian, Machiavellian, Nietzcheian and Conservative. And yes it is the philosophy of antiquarian nobility, in the sense that it's authors hail from the Aristotelian, and that is Noble class of philosophies. But it is not a philosophy of the Noble class in the sense that it attempts to favor a noble class at the expense of others. It simply states that there will always be a noble class, or at least a conflict between different classes who are in political control of a society at one time or another, and that regardless of who is in control, the betterment of most, over time, even if that timeliness is a resistance to perceptible material change to some segment of society, is for the betterment and perpetuation of it. And this difference in preference for outcomes is the difference in class philosophies.
  
  That being said, this is also the only political science. The rest of the philosophies are just religions. And any comparison, a comparison between religion and science. Just as any comparison between Aristotelian, Confucian, and Zoroastrian traditions are differences between scientific, philosophical, and religious traditions.
  
  And if our method is not a science, at least it is the most scientific of methods we have yet found, without first solving the problem of the social sciences - the problem of induction: which is the process of invention of the unknown. Whereas science, as we mean and use the term, is the name we give to the process and method of DISCOVERY, instead of the process of invention. When what we should strive to do, is use the term science to apply to a process where we examine what is, and how it works, rather than how we, in our ignorance, propose that it should be.'
  
  -Curt Doolittle